D&D 5E The Paladin excerpt

[Savage Wombat]

I find it interesting how the same material strikes some positively and some negatively.

"Struggle to live up to your employer's standards" and "bad at your job" are different things.

Partially just a humorous phrasing.

But I think it does raise the issue of alignment as nature vs. alignment as philosophy. If you're a paladin (by this light) your philosophy, your beliefs, are obviously those of lawful goodness. But if your instincts are to be, say, self-interested and unreliable - which do you write on your character sheet?

It just says interesting things about the portrayal of alignment in 5e D&D that's not in keeping with other portrayals and opinions. But probably another thread.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

Paladins can be any alignment, the entry doesn't say anywhere they stop being Paladins if they aren't of a particular alignment.

Yes it does allow the possibility of Paladins who do ignore the rules if they get in the way of either doing good (CG), or even those who are ruthless fanatics of light (LE).

 

[Savage Wombat]

Do the three paladins described in the beginning seem to go with the three oaths as described? I'm not sure, but I haven't read the forbidden lore.

 

[Mistwell]

So you can be a non-LG paladin, but it means you're bad at your job? I don't think that really fits what the "any alignment" supporters were wanting. I hope this isn't one of those "compromises that makes nobody happy".

Does it mean you are bad at your job?

I think you can be a chaotic good police officer who often breaks the rules in minor ways but gets the job done better at the end of the day than the lawful good police officer who never breaks the rules.

 

[Patrick McGill]

Joking aside this does make my idea of a warlock/paladin multiclass a little more interesting. Bound to Hell, but trying for Heaven....

Oooh, I really like that idea too. Nice. Further complicate it by playing a Tiefling.

 

[Patrick McGill]

I actually feel like the fluff being so pro-good is a nice olive branch to more "traditionalist" players, who prefer paladins being LG only. The mechanics do not support it, but the fluff sets the stage for this to be what the class normally is. In this way any changes, like having a non LG (or non G) paladin is additive, but also supported out of the box by the mechanics. Nobodies toys are taken away.

Essentially the text inspires ideas about how to play your character. And nothing tells you how NOT to play it. And I really like that.

 

[Remathilis]

Do the three paladins described in the beginning seem to go with the three oaths as described? I'm not sure, but I haven't read the forbidden lore.

The Oaths in TWSNBN are basically summed up like this.

Devotion: Honesty, Courage, Compassion, Honor, Duty
Ancients: Spread Goodness, Inspire Hope, Enjoy Life, Be the Change
Vengeance: Go for the bigger evil, punish the wicked, absolve your own sins, and do whatever is needed to stop them.

 

[Xodis]

IMO, the Paladin, even an Evil one (not Blackguard) is still an Oath bound warrior (Pushing towards Lawful) set on the destruction of Evil, Protection of Innocent, and helping fellow mortals (pushing towards Good) as I read it above. So no matter where you start on the alignment spectrum....I think just playing the class is going to push you towards LG. Honestly a Holy warrior seeking redemption for past wrongs sounds fun, but at like level 10, you should have done so many good things even the most Evil of Paladins should be Neutral at worst.

Side note, the list of Gods are they all LG, because all the ones I recognize are?

 

[TwoSix]

So you can be a non-LG paladin, but it means you're bad at your job? I don't think that really fits what the "any alignment" supporters were wanting. I hope this isn't one of those "compromises that makes nobody happy".

To my mind, it's dependent on whether you view alignment as the sum of your actions or the sum of your ideals. The ideal a paladin aims for might be LG, but he has his personal issues that might make him LN or NG. Or his sworn ideals might not be LG at all, an Oath of Vengeance towards wrongdoers strikes me as CG, personally (although I understand there are differing interpretations). I think the important part of the paladin's oath is that it represents something she strives for, even it proves to be an impossible goal.

 

[Zaukrie]

Isn't a paladin whatever a group wants it to be?